So how do you destroy it while in play without taking damage?

Well... the only real way would be if they targeted it before you activated the ability and then you just let it die. If you have already sacrificed it, they can't target the enchantment with a "destroy target enchantment" spell because it is no longer a legal target. Therefore, there isn't a possible way to Negate the 2 damage by destroying the seal after it has been sacrficed.

So by this logic it goes:"I sacrifice SOF, you take 2. Well as an instant I disenchanted it" = 2 damage."I disenchant SOF. As an instant I use it and hit you for 2" = no damage.Is that right? If so I've been playing it backwards for years.

I'll set up 2 scenarios.

Scenario 1:

You activate Seal of Fire's ability by sacrificing it. Your opponent cannot respond by targeting the enchantment because it is no longer in play per the cost of it's own ability. Therefore the opponent takes 2 damage or a creature if needed.

Scenario 2:

You have Seal of Fire in play and your opponent casts Destructive Revelry targeting Seal of Fire. In response you sacrficed the enchantment. Therefore, the opponent or creature takes 2 damage.

In both instances the damage is not negated. With that being said, the 2 damage is put on the stack after the sacrifice so the opponent can respond to that but they cannot respond to the sacrifice.

You can also start a question on the Q&A forum for other opinions if need be.

Sacrificing the seal is part of the cost for activating the ability. Since the cost is sacing it, the card wouldn't be a legal target until after the player finished paying the cost. Since the enchantment is already gone after the cost was paid, the player has to take the damage and cannot respond by destroying the seal, since it is already off the field.

good to know - looks like the guy who taught me about the stack and how to respond to things was woefully incorrect.

not surprised - he plays magic like an asshat and does a ton of stuff that my group calls him out on after we all studied and learned more of the intricate rules interactions. this is one that i was apparently misinformed on.

disregard my comment. i still prefer Shock though, because instant speed is better in my opinion than an enchantment. yea you can sac the enchantment at instant speed, but there will be times where you want to shock when its not our turn, so you either have to preemptively play the enchantment or miss the opportunity

You shouldn't be running 4 Destructive Revelrys in your mainboard. It's absolutely useless if your opponent doesn't run artifacts or enchantments.

I'm still very confused about the rulings so I'm gunna post that question in the Q/A part. I still like SOF over shock, what does everyone else think?

Tyrannosary I'm running 4 DR because over a month of going to this tournament I have seen maybe 1 or 2 decks not run any artifacts or enchantments. If I run across a deck like this I guess it will be a no brainier what to side out for games 2 and 3.

chapin316: Yeah if there is still confusion I would go to the Q&A. But basically the two things to take from that ruling is this:

"Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability."

As well as:

"The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists."

In the case of the Seal, that means that the 2 damage will still go on the stack regardless of what happens to the Seal itself.

So it sounds like the only way to get rid of it is to destroy it before it is used

chapin316, Tyrannosary: Understanding the local meta of where the deck is going to be played is important to making card decisions. My personal meta has plenty of decks that don't have enchantments or artifacts so I personally don't need to run Destructive Revelry in the main. However, it sounds like chapin316's meta is artifact and enchantment heavy so it does make sense, based on that statement, why it is run in the main. If this deck gets taken to a large scale tournament I would definitely suggest dropping them to the side.

And if they targeted it you would just sac it in response right? Now if they used Krosan Grip, the "Split Second" ability wouldn't allow the ability to go on the stack but that is a special case. The other way is to use something like Squelch on the ability.

A person just responded and said Grip is the only way to get rid of it without it dealing damage. Nice to know because I'm sure I will run into this problem at the tourney. Hopefully it won't cause too many problems.

If someone wants to cast their ultimate enchantment/artifact removal spell on your 1-drop 2 damage enchantment then by all means.

Works for me. Now the debate on which is better

Well one thing about the two cards is that they both cost the same amount of money.

Also you definitely need more lands, in a deck like this you should be running 20 that way you cast cast your cards easier and your 3+ cmc cards aren't dead in your hand for most of all the game.

Let's see. One is an enchantment while the other is an instant. They do pretty much the same thing, just not in the same way. There is a plethora of counterspells out there to stop Shock as well as Seal of Fire. But once Seal of Fire resolves there are still more ways to get rid of it and the ability. Shock has a certain unpredictability factor whereas with Seal of Fire, the opponent has extra information about what can be done, therefore changing how they play their game. Two examples:

One, if someone plays Wild Nacatl with just a Stomping Ground in play, and if you're holding a Shock, you can get rid of their Nacatl.

Two, if you have a Seal of Fire in play, and your opponent has a Wild Nacatl in their hand and only a Stomping Ground to play, they will not cast the Nacatl.

Either way the Nacatl will not be in play but this is what is most important to me:

With the Shock, you give the opponent the opportunity to make a mistake/wrong decision whereas with Seal of Fire they have perfect information.

To address a point you have made, hand disruption can hit both cards. But with Shock, you can cast it in response tothe hand disruption spell. Seal of Fire can't do that.

In my opinion, Shock>Seal of Fire.

So if I were to add two more lands: what should they be and what should I take out? Perhaps a Browbeat and a Atarka's Command? As for lands I'm thinking... +2 Cinder Glade or +2 Shivan Oasis or maybe -4 Reflecting Pool and +4 Cinder Glade and +2 Wooded Foothills. I doubt that 2 more Fire-Lit Thicket would be a good idea right? Any thoughts?

you need to add basic lands, otherwise Path to Exile gets really bad for you, and Ghost Quarter will always just be a Strip Mine. To make room you could probably take out Stomping Ground, without fetch lands they are not as good, also Reflecting Pool is not super necessary in a two color deck. Also Destructive Revelry should be in your sideboard not your main board, and Seal of Fire really only sees play to work with Tarmogoyf, so there are probably better cards you could use over that. Finally why is Ensnaring Bridge in your sideboard? You seem to want to attack with creatures to win so it seems counter productive.

DuBie15 I know that having no basic lands will disadvantage me a little facing PTE but I don't think it's that much of a problem. The only reason I have considered running basics is to SB Blood Moon since every deck runs non basics and I've only seen a few basics here and there. I have not seen GQ yet so I'm not sure how much of a problem it will be. The DR are needed as stated above because of the massive amounts of artifacts running around my tourney and the EB are for all of the beat that shows up as well. As mentioned in the description there is currently: dragons, Angels, artifact pump, and pack rat beat alive which the bridge helps against all.

If affinity is a huge problem for you i would recommend Ancient Grudge maybe, because you will get double the usage out of it, and is easier mana. Also im not sure how much lantern control you see but its better in that match up too.

And with the PTE stuff it doesnt seem like a huge deal but it takes value away from your opponent.

Also if you are going for burn, Lava Spike is a staple. And for the creatures the 5 cost is a bit much, i would suggest Flinthoof Boar, Tarmogoyf, Leatherback Baloth, or maybe Strangleroot Geist and Goblin Guide probably fit the curve and the aggressive nature of the deck a bit better.

Also Wooded Foothills would be a good idea to thin your deck

It's not even affinity that's the problem (I have not seen any yet) it's just random decks with some devastating artifacts. AG is interesting as I like the flashback ability which essentially turns the 4 copies into 8. The RG CC for DR doesn't bother me too much and I like the direct damage aspect of it as it fits the theme but the ability to recast AG is intriguing. LS is a good card and I'm considering adding it. Out of the creatures you suggested Tarm, LB, or SG are interesting, especially Tarm (how high could I technically get him?) and WF is a possibility, I would probably need more fetchable things than SG then, maybe switch 4 of those for the RP and then added 2 foothills?

If its just random artifact decks then i still like ancient grudge, the flash back means that you could probably cut one of them, and put in something more universal. And the goyf is definitely pretty expensive, over 140 each for sure.

For the wooded foothills you could add Cinder Glade and some basics to have extra fetch targets, which i think would be a good move, probably taking out some Karplusan Forest and Reflecting Pools to make room.

chapin316 to answer the question about Tarmogoyf, the biggest he can be is an 8/9, but he usually gets to 7/8 because not many tribal cards are out there in competitive modern (at least i haven't seen any, with the exception of the random Bitterblossom)

i also second Wooded Foothills and Cinder Glade. while i do think that Stomping Ground is better for modern, since not many decks run a lot of basics, it is a great budget alternative. Reflecting Pool is also good